[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge, we part company. Inevitably.
I gave the cube as an example of something that is a Nick-substance but does not map to what I understand as Substance. To me, a solid cube is as much a countable individual as anything. The set of all solid cubes has aleph-one cardinality, but that is not what determines what a substance is.
There's a conflation, deep down inside, I have to clarify. The ontological types are: atom, substance, group. The counting types are: individual, collective, and... substance. A glass of water is an individual of substance.So maybe I should say the ontological types are atom, stuff, group, and the counting types are individual, substance, collective.
A cube, just like a glass of water, is a countable individual. But it is infinitesimally subdividable. So it is a countable individual of stuff (what I was calling individual of substance.)
I used to understand {piro} as "the largest possible bit" = "the
whole" too, but And persuaded me that "every bit" makes more sense,
given no default quantifiers for "the whole". It seemed that
Lojbab too was in favour of the "every bit" interpretation.
Then I defy you all. And I have fundament behind me: {piro} is "the whole", as explicitly set out in p. 130 of CLL. I shall not surrender it. Especially not when I've used it to finally reconcile with collectives and emergence.
piro lo su'omei is a su'omei pimu lo su'omei is a su'omei A se su'omei is: lu'a lo su'omei All possible bits of a su'omei? You say that... with ro! ro se su'omei = ro lu'a lo su'omei In substances, piro loi djacu is a substance pimu loi djacu is a substance ro te memzilfendi be pimu loi djacu is all bits of the half a substance.
>A collective of all humanity is piro loi ji'i6ki'oki'oki'o remna, ok?
Not according to my current understanding of {piro}. In both
SL and XS4, the collective would just be {loi ji'i6ki'oki'oki'o remna}.
In SL, if you add {piro} then you have "each bit of the collective
of 6G humans", i.e. just "each human" in this case.
With respect, Jorge, that's bullshit. p. 130 of CLL says "the whole". CLL makes explicit that collectives are always fractionally quantifiable. And collectives are utterly analogous to sets (we considered conflating them, and sometimes the gi'uste does); p. 131 explicitly says that pimu lo'i remna is a set. So lojbanmass is closed under fractional quantification, just like individuals are closed under natural number quantification.
Don't tell me piro loi remna has anything to do with "each human" in SL. When piro is only ever defined in SL as "the whole of".
What you think and what you prefer to have piro be does not determine what piro is in SL, and therefore what an SL-compatible solution should contain.
>pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi (keeping them intact --- half the Beatles is
>people, not people goo) is a subgroup, of cardinality 4*3 = 12: there
>are 12 ways you can form a duo out of the four members. But the inner
>quantifier isn't counting Beatles. It's counting atomic bits of
>Beatles, which you're using to form the subgroup. And the outer
>quantifier isn't counting portions. It's describing size of portion.
In SL (according to the Lojbab/And/Jorge recent understanding)
{pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi} is not a collective of two bits, but
two bits out of the four. You'd need {loi pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi}
to get the collective reading.
Then you're all counter p. 130-131 of CLL and the utterly analogous treatment of sets, and therefore in deviation from the fundament. How you talked Bob into this, I have no idea, and this confirms to me that Bob gets easily confused. :-) Thread header, please?
>... Ergo, if it is legitimate to have the inner quantifier of a >collective to be the count of members of the collective (loi vo >prenrbitlzi), it is legitimate for the inner quantifier of a substance >to be the count of bits of the substance (loi ci'ipa djacu). It is legitimate to do that. I just wouldn't call it a substance. It is a collective of bits of water.
I define a substance as an infinitesimal collective, then. I can deal with that. This may end up meaning that while there are three ontological types --- atom, stuff, group --- there are only two counting types: individual... and mass.
--
Dr Nick Nicholas, French/Italian. University of Melbourne, Australia
http://www.opoudjis.net nickn@hidden.email
"All the nations also under his dominion were filled with joy and
inexpressible gladness at not being even for a moment deprived of the
benefits of a well ordered government."
--- Eusebius of Caesaria on the accession of Constantine I.